Framed by another state for a non-crime

[hkhenson@cup.portal.com]

If anyone has a good contact with the ACLU, this is a time to use it!
 
 



Date: Sun, 10 Jul 94 16:49:03 PD
Lines: 83

DRAFT MOTION

(Note this is not a motion, but an early draft by a non-lawyer --
-me- about one aspect of the AA BBS case.  I have been very
concerned with what I have found about the performance of the
courts.  It has turned out to be a lot worse than I thought. 
Keith Henson)

On July 8, 1994 Judge Julia Smith-Gibbons, United States District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee in Memphis TN,
verbally ruled that defendant's motion to dismiss (improper venue
based on the North American Free Trade Agreement and others) was
denied.  Her words were that her order denying the motion was "in
the typewriter."  Defendants and defendant's attorney expect (on
the basis of her previous judicial conduct) to be handed the
written order at the time of trial, precluding any interlocutory
appellate remedies.

Defendants Robert and Carleen Thomas are therefore forced to
appeal Judge Gibbon's ruling without an order reduced to writing
and signed by the court.   However, her verbal ruling is "final"
with respect to this issue.

If this interlocutory appeal were delayed until after trial the
Thomases' would be irreparably harmed, even if acquitted.  Not
only would they lose the cost of trial, which could not be
recovered civilly, but they would have to shutdown their business
as it requires part time physical presence.  (Trial in this area
would not be as onerous in that the business could continue to be
operated with a few hours attention each night.)

These motions are being filed in both the Sixth and Ninth Cir-
cuits because the underlying case involves an *assault* on the
authority of the Circuit Courts, and therefore upon the entire
court system.  When the Courts lose their capacity to function
normally it is termed insurrection.  The case at hand may be
close to this state.

As is made clear by attached documents, a *district* court in the
Sixth Circuit is attempting to enforce authority over persons and
property in the Ninth Circuit on the basis of a manufactured
"crime".

The gross inequity performed by law enforcement agents in
manufacturing the child pornography charge could be proved at
trial, but the *law* on which the "crime" is based (Title 18,
Section 2252 of the Federal Code) has been ruled "unconstitutio-
nal on its face" in the Ninth Circuit (US vs X-citement Video,
Inc., 982 Federal Reporter Second Edition, page 1285, Dec. 16,
1992).  At the time of the search of the Thomas's home and
business, (January 10, 1994) this statute *could not* be used to
prosecute *any* person in the Ninth Circuit because it is an
unconstitutional law, and unenforceable.  (Judge Gibbons was
notified on June 22, 1994 of these facts.)

On January 26, 1994 a Federal Grand Jury in Memphis Tennessee
returned an indictment against Robert Thomas citing section 2252,
a section which *could not be applied* by any Ninth Circuit
District Court to a citizen in that circuit or any other Circuit. 
(There were other sections cited including section 2256 calling
for forfeiture of tens of thousands of dollars of computer hardware to 
the Tennessee authorities, and possibly the sysops home, car, etc.) 

The effect--if a district court in one section of the country is
allowed to charge citizens on laws ruled unconstitutional in the
Circuit where they live--is to completely undermine the authority
of all the Circuit courts in the country.  This case is about
liberty and property, but taken to the extreme, a person could be
removed from his home by a District Court operating in another
part of the country and executed.

This appeal is about nothing less than the authority of *any*
Federal court to protect the life, liberty and property of any
citizen of the United States.

If this appeal is not granted, it will show that the District
courts can ignore another Circuit's laws and do anything they
want with a citizen's life, liberty and property.  It will show
that the Circuit courts do not have the authority to protect
life, liberty, or property for the people within their circuit,
and ultimately will undermine the courts ability to protect any
inhabitant of the United States.
(Net.folks--please comment!)